Post Tagged with: "s-4"

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has released the long-awaited decision on Bell’s targeted ads program. The Commissioner’s press release soft-pedals the outcome – “Bell advertising program raises privacy concerns” – but the decision is clear: Bell’s so-called relevant ads program violates Canadian privacy law. As I wrote earlier this year, the key issue in the case centered on whether Bell should be permitted to use an opt-out consent mechanism in which its millions of customers are all included in targeted advertising unless they take pro-active steps to opt-out, or if an opt-in consent model is more appropriate. Given the detailed information collected and used by Bell, I argued that opt-in consent was the right approach.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada agrees:In our view, for the reasons expressed above, the RAP clearly involves the use of sensitive personal information. As such, the sensitivity of the information at issue leads us to the conclusion that Bell must obtain express consent for the RAP in the circumstances. This conclusion is further supported by our assessment of the reasonable expectations of Bell Customers, which is set out below.

Yesterday I appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to discuss Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act. The discussion focused on a wide range of concerns, including the shortcomings in the security breach disclosure rules and the need for greater enforcement powers for the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Metro News covered the appearance. My opening remarks are posted below. I’ll link to the full transcript once available.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology continues its hearing on the Digital Privacy Act (Bill S-4) yesterday, with appearances from Privacy Commissioner of Canada Daniel Therrien, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Canadian Marketing Association. Therrien expressed general support for the bill, but concern with the expanded voluntary disclosure provision.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Marketing Association seemed to take the committee by surprise by criticizing a provision in the bill that clarifies what constitutes meaningful consent. The proposed provision states:6.1 For the purposes of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, the consent of an individual is only valid if it is reasonable to expect that an individual to whom the organization’s activities are directed would understand the nature, purpose and consequences of the collection, use or disclosure of the personal information to which they are consenting.

That provision should be uncontroversial given that it only describes what most would take to mean consent, namely that the person to whom the activities are directed would understand the consequences of consent. Indeed, Therrien expressed support for the change, noting:

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology started its study on Bill S-4, the PIPEDA reform bill, last week. While news reports suggested that Industry Minister James Moore was open to changes, government MPs warned that any amendments would mean the bill would go back to the Senate for approval and likely die with the fall election. For example, MP Mark Warawa stated:

Minister, if we were to then delay and amend, would S-4 then have to go back to the Senate to get passed? My concern is – this is needed and a vast majority of Canadians want this passed – if we amend it, what’s the chance of it passing in this Parliament? Because, it’s needed.

Moore acknowledged that MPs can suggest reforms, but emphasized that “there is some urgency.”

The government’s sense of urgency with the PIPEDA reform bill is striking given that it has largely stalled progress on the key provisions in this bill for years. In fact, in one instance it left a privacy bill sitting for two years in the House of Commons with no movement whatsoever until it died with prorogation. The historical background behind Bill S-4 is as follows:

A new year is traditionally the time to refresh and renew personal goals. The same is true in the digital policy realm, where despite the conclusion of lawful access, anti-counterfeiting, and anti-spam rules in 2014, many other issues in Canada remain unresolved, unaddressed, or stalled in the middle of development.

With a new year – one that will feature a federal election in which all parties will be asked to articulate their vision of Canada’s digital future – there is a chance to hit the policy reset button on issues that have lagged or veered off course.

There is no shortage of possibilities, but my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the following four concerns should be top of mind for policy makers and politicians: